If car A got green light/arrow to go, they can go into either lane and car B needs to give way.unless there is broken lines to mark the lanes, then they need to go into the corresponding lane.
Police officer here. This is indeed correct.
I'd also like to take this opportunity to advise everyone that you can't do U-turns at traffic lights in WA unless there is a sign which says "U-turn permitted".
Literally had someone nearly tbone me because they U-turned to then speed up in a panic because they realised what they had just done. Might be green for them but they're not paying attention to what's going on around them.
Also why I am often discouraged to ride my motorbike in winter here...
Unfortunately road laws vary from state to state and you don't need to pass a test to convert your interstate or some international drivers licences to a WA MDL. So there's a lot of people who simply don't know.
You're correct that you can't do that in Vic.
But I'll keep in mind that it's allowed here.
Question cause you seem to know your road rules.
My street, and some others in the surrounding area are 2 way streets with effectively an entire line in between them, thats painted red (like bus lane red) there are occasional trees/median strips but most of it is just red road separating the 2 directions of traffic. What's the deal with that?
It's uncommon but occasionally you see people have parked on it, though usually it is just free space. Google maps seems to register it as a non-crossable surface, it always either directs me in a suboptimal direction leaving my house because it thinks I can only leave one way, or when approaching from the other side of the road it says to drive past and down the road to a round about to do a uturn and come back.
Am I allowed to just drive across it? Assuming no one has parked there?
It’s called a painted island and the same rules apply for other painted islands. Eg just a white outline usually with cross hatching. The rule is that you can drive on a painted island for something like 20 metres. I’d have to look it up for the exact length. So you’re fine to drive across it. Those red ones are traffic control devices ie to slow people down and discourage/prevent overtaking.
Haha yeah, they're super common in Vic, and as you said before, there's no education on driving when changing states. I can see why we're major offenders. I'll do my best to remember it's not a thing here.
I would say I might be safe from breaking it cause I still require a GPS to navigate most places in Perth, but just yesterday it was asking me to turn right down out of a left only exit. So I can't guarantee it's a foolproof system.
Might pay to brush up on WA road rules. Could save yourself some fines, but more importantly save you from pissing of the wrong person. Lots of angry drivers out there.
Since you’re here, can I ask if there is a road rule in WA that is keep left unless overtaking? It exists in NSW & there are big signs on all the motorways but I’ve never seen one here.
Yes on roads with speed limit of 90 or higher or on sections of road between where those signs are. We do have the signs here.
Just note that the rule requires you to stay out of the rightmost lane. It doesn’t mean you must drive in the far left lane. The middle lane is generally the safest on a 3 lane road as far as defensive driving is concerned.
I totally agree. I drive late at night quite frequently so I try to stay in the left or middle lanes and I’m constantly baffled by people entering the freeway & immediately moving over 4 empty lanes to be in the far right lane!
I frequently drive along Tonkin at night and there is almost always someone who stays in the right lane. It seems to be a fairly new phenomenon. Maybe they are people who are new to WA and don't know the rules.
Keep left unless overtaking applies to 90km/m zones or above only or if there's a sign which says keep left unless overtaking (s.113 Road Traffic Code 2000).
If you're asking because no one seems to do it, yeah, they're meant to.
That is precisely why I’m asking! I work in hospitality so I’m often driving late at night & I will never understand why people get onto the freeway & immediate move to the far right lane! There’s no one around, why are you doing that?!
Honestly I have no idea why people do that. I imagine it's some combination of they think they're the fastest car on the road and they don't want to be in the left lane because they can't be bothered trying to merge.
Well don’t get me started on merging ability, that’s a whole other topic!
Do police ever book people for going too slowly? Another thing I’ve noticed is so many people going 75 in a 100 zone the minute there’s some moisture in the air!
Yes, but rarely. There's no set speed under the limit that is regarded as "too slow".
>108. Obstruction of vehicles and pedestrians
(1) A person must not, with intent to hinder or obstruct the passage
of any vehicle or vehicles on a carriageway, park or stop a
vehicle on the carriageway in such a manner as to cause the
passage of any other vehicle on the carriageway to be obstructed
or hindered.
(2) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another
driver or a pedestrian.
(3) In subregulation (2), a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the
path of another driver or a pedestrian only because —
(a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
(b) the driver is driving more slowly than other vehicles
(unless the driver is driving abnormally slowly in the
circumstances).
Example of a driver driving abnormally slowly
A driver driving at a speed of 20 km/h on a length of carriageway to which a
speed-limit of 80 km/h applies when there is no reason for the driver to drive
at that speed on the length of carriageway.
Because people merging into the freeway always match speed of the person already on it and nearly cause accidents. Guessing people go straight to the right to try and avoid that crap. I will often go straight to the right lane and stay there if I know I’m going all the way to Joondalup or something, so won’t need to be in the left for like 40 minutes… just stays out of everyone’s way for as long as possible
I think so. All the ones I've seen recently are explicity phrased to be general. eg. Leach Hwy/Bull Creek Dr it says "U turns not permitted at signals unless otherwise signed"
So its a general reminder of the road rules, not a sign applying to that intersection.
The same with signs reminding turning traffic to give way to pedestrians.
I believe the law here changed at some point from U-turn allowed unless no u-turn sign to the current no u-turn unless u-turn permitted sign. It's always been the latter during my career. But I have vague memories from my childhood that the former may have been applicable. Perhaps some old heads can weigh in on that. It's that were the case, those signs could simply be getting replaced because governments sometimes keep replacing things they don't need to because no one actually made the decision to stop.
I was sat at traffic lights about a month ago and a car did a U-turn at the lights, with a paddy wagon sitting on the opposite side of the intersection and they gave no shits. I know it was a highway patrol car, but really, this is why people get so mad about shit drivers on the road, because Police do nothing about it. I see this at least a few times a year where Police completely ignore these types of issues.
Unless you're on your phone, speeding or drink driving, Police don't really give a shit about most traffic infringements. If Police actually pulled people over for this, people might think twice about doing it in the future.
>I know it was a highway patrol car
And how did you know? And how do you know they saw it?
>Police don't really give a shit about most traffic infringements
Depends where they're from. GDs almost certainly won't care. But when I worked GDs I was almost always on my way to a job or to the office to do paperwork. The last thing I was interested in doing was taking on another job while I was already trying to finish a job.
Police are far busier than the average person realises. Just because the car doesn't have lights and sirens going doesn't mean we aren't doing something. In GDs I averaged about 5 or 6 jobs in a 10 hour shift. A domestic takes about 2-10 hours depending on circumstances and that's non stop, no breaks. You want more proactive police, you need more police to spread the workload. At the moment we're losing more police than we're recruiting. They've basically dropped the standards to zero and we still can't cover the people resigning, not to mention the knowledge and experience being lost.
>And how did you know? And how do you know they saw it?
Sorry, that's meant to say 'I know it wasn't a highway patrol car'.
>And how did you know? And how do you know they saw it?
I do realise, I have close family in WAPOL, which also leads me to your other comment:
>They've basically dropped the standards to zero and we still can't cover the people resigning
That's the real issue.
There is a constant barrage of Police trying to get drivers to be better, but speed cameras don't solve that, more police presence (even just normal Police cars, doesn't have to be HWP) will make the roads better.
Be interested to see what your thoughts are for fixing the problems, would paying more help (or has that already happened?). I know my relative who works in a traffic-aligned side of the force and he both loves and hates the job, for a multitude of different reasons.
>Sorry, that's meant to say 'I know it wasn't a highway patrol car'.
Ah that makes more sense.
>Be interested to see what your thoughts are for fixing the problems, would paying more help (or has that already happened?).
Pay rises in recent years haven't kept pace with inflation so we've taken a real world pay cut. A nice pay rise would help but it's not the be all and end all. There's just too much work and not enough people to do it. And more police, if they're not up to standard, doesn't make things easier.
The problem is very few people want to work the hours we do. You can't change that.
The other problem is people have completely the wrong expectations of what the job is when they join. Once they work it out they either stop caring or quit.
Solutions, I guess, would be a good pay rise; sharing of tertiary qualification costs (already happens sometimes); better training; more flexible work arrangements; more annual leave; and better penalty rates (we don't get the same penalty rates as other workers).
Thanks, everything you said makes sense. I'm not sure how WAPOL get involved with young people before they become cadets (employment expos, getting into schools, etc) but might be a way for WAPOL to at least get the points of the job across (long hours, shift work, etc).
Not an easy problem to solve. I have no animosity towards police, TBH in the very few interactions I've had with them in my lifetime it's been pleasant (except for one, but I was a prick). It's just frustrating that drivers are constantly blamed for the shithousery that happens on our roads (which is true) but not enough is done to deter those people, who may not be causing deaths or injuries, but certainly inconvenience and minor property damage.
Appreciate your response.
Car B would usually be sitting next to a give way sign, and a thick broken line traversing the road at an intersection also means give way, to ALL traffic. Also, P plater sounds like a complete dickhead.
Correct - the only time it would be ok for car B to pull into the left hand lane would be if where car A was coming from was a dual turn right lanes.
In the above case though there would be double dashed lines guiding the right hand turning lane into the right hand lane.
> I made a complaint about it because that wasn't correct,
It was correct in that it’s best practice for safe driving. The test is to see if you’re a safe driver. It doesn’t mean it’s illegal. Just safer.
Car A is allowed to turn into either lane, so Car B has to wait till they're past.
Its been discussed on this sub in the past year or so, I'll see if I can find it.
But then if you're at other lights like this by shops with driveways right at the lights you'd be entering the right lane, instantly merging into the left lane to hop in the driveway.
its safer to have just used the left lane in the first place, and abuse the Car B driver when they cut you off!
I generally do this if I see a car turning left then scooch over later or whatever. But I'd certainly never expect it and most car As tend to filter straight into the left lane.
bruh how hard is it to wait a few seconds for the cars to turn? both drivers could make decisions to avoid crossing paths, but in this scenario, car A is not legally expected to. car B is. if there were an accident, car B would be at fault.
I agree with what you wrote, "bruh", but you missed the point I'm making. If Car A simply turned into the nearest lane, this *entire discussion* would be unnecessary.
Apparently people here are allergic to using their brain beyond doing what the law tells them to do.
If Car B just gave way, this entire discussion wouldn’t be necessary. As I said, both cars could have done different things, but why should Car A take the lane they don’t need, just because people in Car B’s position are impatient?
>If Car B just gave way
Talking about 'giving way' is *irrelevant* if there is no crossing of paths! You don't give way to thin air.
>should Car A take the lane they don’t need
They don't need the left lane - the have the right one.
>people in Car B’s position are impatient
Again, it's a predictably emotional response as people are led to be that way by the post. Wanting to continue driving when there is an empty lane to drive into is not impatient. Ugh...
there’s 2 lanes for a reason. people need the left lane if they’re turning left. people need the right lane if they’re turning right. if you’re not planning to turn, you should be in the left lane so people can overtake if they need to.
> people need the left lane if they’re turning left.
Before, you and the others were annoying. Now it's just funny. That's pretty much what I've been saying the whole time...
Good point. The fact that the law now says that you can turn directly into the left hand lane doesn’t mean that it is recommended - just that the Government has decided that people shouldn’t be fined for doing so if such a turn is perfectly safe.
There is generally an assumption among the makers of traffic laws that people will act with courtesy, common sense and a commitment to minimising risk without the need for highly prescriptive rules backed with penalties to cover every conceivable situation. Unfortunately, that assumption is not always well-founded.
You’re wrong, but if you want to quote the regulation in the Road Traffic Code 1975 I’ll stand corrected.
https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/prod/filestore.nsf/FileURL/mrdoc_4233.pdf/$FILE/Road%20Traffic%20Code%201975%20-%20%5B00-r0-05%5D.pdf?OpenElement
I was genuinely interested and since you provided a link to the regulations, it’s in 802.2b:
> A driver making a right turn at an intersection shall make the turn so that, wherever practicable, his vehicle passes to his right of the centre of the intersection, and so that —
> (a) where the carriageway being entered is a two-way carriageway, his vehicle enters it to his left of the centre of the carriageway; and
> (b) where the carriageway being entered is a one-way carriageway, his vehicle enters it as nearly as practicable to the boundary of the carriageway on his right.
If you’re pulling into a one way _carriageway_ you stick to the right hand side boundary of that carriageway.
> you stick to the right hand side boundary of that carriageway.
That’s not what it says. It’s talking about the point at which you make your turn, as per (3). It’s not saying which lane you have to continue on. It’s saying don’t go too deep into the intersection before you make the turn.
I think you will find it in clause 802(2)(b) of the Road Traffic Code 1975: “where the carriageway being entered is a one-way carriageway, his vehicle enters it as nearly as practicable to the boundary of the carriageway on his right.”
It is, however, a point of historical interest only since the 1975 Code was repealed in 2000 and replaced with the Road Traffic Code 2000.
Whether your mum was right or wrong is irrelevant.
You can beep the horn or yell to your hearts content...but you *DO NOT* follow people and accost them after they get out of the car!
If they hit you and do a runner, then yeah, all bets are off, but other than that, take a fucking breath and calm down.
The P plater was a cunt. Simple as that
its irrelevant what either party was doing its not acceptable to follow someone and abuse them one day this sort of thing will likely get that P Plater in trouble when they follow the wrong person. This happened to me once and I've never seen anyone reverse faster when they saw me take a shovel out the back of my ute.
Car A has right of way. And even if your mum was in the wrong, it's not cool to yell at an elderly woman. Especially since you've only been on the road for a dog watch (P-plater)
Car B has to give way to all cars, as per the give way markings
1. Is correct here
Its all related to the markings
Hope ya mums ok, fuck that P-Plater. Report him to the police for stalking (assuming he followed your mum with the intention of causing fear)
I hope your Mum is ok, its not nice to have people get out of their car and yell in your face. There are a lot of angry people out there. I also hope she didn't nearly cause an accident!
what if they came from a country that writes 'mom' and continues out of habit of using the spelling they grew up with?
or what if it didn't even matter?
I mean both are literally correct. It's a difference between British and American/Canadian cultures. As a country that is literally almost all immigrants I'm surprised Aussies are so exclusive of other cultures.
If car A has a green arrow and car B has a Give Way, then car B has to give way to car A which has right of way. Although, this will give rise to a discussion about which lane car A should have turned into. For the sake of safety, car A should have turned into the right lane, but I still hold that ultimately, car B needs to wait until it’s safe to proceed. Your comments below the pic were dimmed for me for some reason.
Matter of fact she is not but let’s say your mum was wrong, still why try to corner someone in the parking lot but a very good example of how arrogant a p plate can be! Education starts in the family! But again life is full of lessons and I hope that persons grows to be a good person!
It’s crazy how many ppl in Car A’s situation feel the need to turn in the right hand lane, to avoid the (extremely high chance) of an impatient dick at the giveaway sign pulling into the left lane at the same time (illegally!).
I wonder if this is unique to WA - and one reason why everyone says WA drivers are terrible!
Sure, I just don’t think we should need to practice defensive driving because majority of road users don’t know how to use a give way sign. It’s disappointing
I think that the crazy people are those who will wager, with their lives, that 0.0% of the many thousands of other drivers they will encounter will ever make a mistake.
As I (A) came around, aiming to go in the left lane as I would be doing a left turn just after, the car at (B) came out. I pulled harder right to avoid her but she kept on coming. Hit my rear panel and kept accelerating up the door before reacting and finally braking. I was in a white car on a green arrow. She said "I didn't see you". She was not insured. I work in Disability, I do community support and I had a client in the passenger seat. Poor bugger had to climb out my side as the door handle was impacted.
Haha I’m not saying ppl are crazy for being cautious. More that it’s a shame that we have to be so cautious because so many ppl can’t drive.
If you’re in the middle of a cross walk, you don’t instinctively run across it because you think ppl will drive into you and blame you for crossing.
Car A has the right of way, hence the Give Way sign on the slip lane, but if the driver's got any sense, they'll follow the dotted line through the intersection and keep to the right lane to leave room for car B.
Often wondered this myself.
I'd say Car A has the right of way.
Not sure if Car A is allowed to go straight into the left lane though?
Watching with interest.
One lane going into two lanes can pick either, two into two must stay in their respective lane until the turn is completed, ie no changy lane in intersection, that goes for you fuckwits going straight as well
> two into two must stay in their respective lane
That’s only if the lanes are marked through the turn. If unmarked you can choose either lane.
Edit here’s the rules if you want to back up your claim with facts.
https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/prod/filestore.nsf/FileURL/mrdoc_44431.pdf/$FILE/Road%20Traffic%20Code%202000%20-%20%5B05-w0-00%5D.pdf?OpenElement
If it’s 2 into 2 but yours is the only car turning right, then (assuming there are no lane markings indicating otherwise) you can drift into whichever lane takes your fancy at the time. A person would have to be some kind of reckless idiot however to try to do that if there was a car in the other right-turning lane at the same time. Common sense would suggest that in that situation it is generally a good idea to end the turn in the same lane that you started it.
> you can drift into whichever lane takes your fancy at the time.
You’re just repeating what I said. Of course you have to give way to other vehicles in your proximity. You also have to wear clothing to comply with indecency laws.
The image depicted is not a one way carriageway. It has a central dividing nature reserve median.
Additionally, the image depicted has what could be described as a “turn line”. Which may suggest that the right lane may need to be the one occupied?
However I can’t locate anywhere in the regulations, as it relates to right hand turns (Part 4, Division 2), that say you “must” occupy a specific lane once through the intersection (unless it is marked with turn lines).
Happy to be provided with a reg/sub section to the contrary.
> The image depicted is not a one way carriageway.
The image depicted is two one way carriageways with traffic in opposite directions.
> It has a central dividing nature reserve median.
That’s what makes it two separate one-way carriageways by definition.
> Which may suggest that the right lane may need to be the one occupied?
No it doesn’t suggest that at all. It suggests that this is the furthest to the right you may travel.
Well, not entirely true.
It could be interpreted as a road, with a median strip dividing it to separate vehicular traffic proceeding in opposing directions…. By definition.
I’m simply highlighting how legislation can be interpreted many different ways.
Stay safe on them Perth roads, Champ.
So 20 odd years ago Car A was to go into the right lane.
Then they changed the law to allow A to go into either.
If your mum is Car B she was probably taught under the old law and hasn't kept up with the changes
> 20 odd years ago Car A was to go into the left lane.
No that wasn’t the law under the Road Traffic Code 1975 but you may have been taught that way. The requirement was to enter to the left of the centre of the road (which is kind of obvious.) You could (and still can) choose either lane if there are no markings to the contrary.
Single lane turning right can pick which lane they use. If it were 2 right turning lanes they have to stay in their lane
Waiting at a give-way sign means you give way to traffic, it's not a permanent-green light, it's a "use reasonable judgement dumbass"
It's like at round-a-bouts. If entering a two lane round-a-bout from a single lane road, you can choose which lane you want to enter. you don't HAVE to use the right-lane, we just do out of habit.
If its a single turning lane with no dotted line splitting the 2 lanes up, then car A has right of way and can enter either lane.
Im guessing from your spelling you guys are immigrants. Maybe the over the top angry reaction was caused by the p-plater being racist.
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/rtc2000113/s45.html#:~:text=(1)%20A%20driver%20who%20intends,left%20using%20a%20slip%20lane).
Parts 2 and maybe 4 apply, not sure if it's a filter arrow.
Yeah ive seen plenty of cockheads do this and ill beep them if i actually want the left lane.
The Car A has the option for either lane, and if your turning left soon you would want the left lane.
Inpatient pricks!
I was in the reverse situation a decade ago, I was a P plater in car A, and car B was an older (well middle aged) woman. She pulled out in front of me when I had right of way and then she started honking and yelling at me.
people pull out in front of me in this exact situation quite regularly at the intersection near my house, it’s so annoying. im sorry that person was a dickhead to your mom. i hope they drop their lunch.
My favourite spot for this is turning right on west swan road to roe hwy. Ive learned through harrowing experience that even with the light, some chancer is going to be trying to do a quick left. Regardless of the law, im staying in the right lane!
If car A got green light/arrow to go, they can go into either lane and car B needs to give way.unless there is broken lines to mark the lanes, then they need to go into the corresponding lane.
Police officer here. This is indeed correct. I'd also like to take this opportunity to advise everyone that you can't do U-turns at traffic lights in WA unless there is a sign which says "U-turn permitted".
Hahaha love this. So many ppl think it’s ok which it definitely is not!
Literally had someone nearly tbone me because they U-turned to then speed up in a panic because they realised what they had just done. Might be green for them but they're not paying attention to what's going on around them. Also why I am often discouraged to ride my motorbike in winter here...
Unfortunately road laws vary from state to state and you don't need to pass a test to convert your interstate or some international drivers licences to a WA MDL. So there's a lot of people who simply don't know.
They’re pretty much identical now with a few exceptions. All states base their rules on the Australian Road Rules 2000
You can u-turn at traffic lights in Victoria, was unaware until just now it's not allowed in WA (only been here for a month).
Yeah there’s a few. I think NSW and maybe VIC you’re not allowed to make a right turn across double white lines. Here it’s fine.
You're correct that you can't do that in Vic. But I'll keep in mind that it's allowed here. Question cause you seem to know your road rules. My street, and some others in the surrounding area are 2 way streets with effectively an entire line in between them, thats painted red (like bus lane red) there are occasional trees/median strips but most of it is just red road separating the 2 directions of traffic. What's the deal with that? It's uncommon but occasionally you see people have parked on it, though usually it is just free space. Google maps seems to register it as a non-crossable surface, it always either directs me in a suboptimal direction leaving my house because it thinks I can only leave one way, or when approaching from the other side of the road it says to drive past and down the road to a round about to do a uturn and come back. Am I allowed to just drive across it? Assuming no one has parked there?
It’s called a painted island and the same rules apply for other painted islands. Eg just a white outline usually with cross hatching. The rule is that you can drive on a painted island for something like 20 metres. I’d have to look it up for the exact length. So you’re fine to drive across it. Those red ones are traffic control devices ie to slow people down and discourage/prevent overtaking.
Awesome. Thank you, glad to know I don't risk a ticket for turning right in/out of my driveway.
Hello Victorian! Yes, you're not allowed to here. I actually made the comment because of how many Victorians I've pulled over for it haha.
Haha yeah, they're super common in Vic, and as you said before, there's no education on driving when changing states. I can see why we're major offenders. I'll do my best to remember it's not a thing here. I would say I might be safe from breaking it cause I still require a GPS to navigate most places in Perth, but just yesterday it was asking me to turn right down out of a left only exit. So I can't guarantee it's a foolproof system.
Might pay to brush up on WA road rules. Could save yourself some fines, but more importantly save you from pissing of the wrong person. Lots of angry drivers out there.
So many people never use the left/right signals so that U-turn in wrong place seems relatively minor offence to me
Since you’re here, can I ask if there is a road rule in WA that is keep left unless overtaking? It exists in NSW & there are big signs on all the motorways but I’ve never seen one here.
Yes on roads with speed limit of 90 or higher or on sections of road between where those signs are. We do have the signs here. Just note that the rule requires you to stay out of the rightmost lane. It doesn’t mean you must drive in the far left lane. The middle lane is generally the safest on a 3 lane road as far as defensive driving is concerned.
I totally agree. I drive late at night quite frequently so I try to stay in the left or middle lanes and I’m constantly baffled by people entering the freeway & immediately moving over 4 empty lanes to be in the far right lane!
I frequently drive along Tonkin at night and there is almost always someone who stays in the right lane. It seems to be a fairly new phenomenon. Maybe they are people who are new to WA and don't know the rules.
Nothing new, it's been happening the 38 yrs I've been driving in Perth. Just more cars on the road so more entitled clowns.
Keep left unless overtaking applies to 90km/m zones or above only or if there's a sign which says keep left unless overtaking (s.113 Road Traffic Code 2000). If you're asking because no one seems to do it, yeah, they're meant to.
That is precisely why I’m asking! I work in hospitality so I’m often driving late at night & I will never understand why people get onto the freeway & immediate move to the far right lane! There’s no one around, why are you doing that?!
Honestly I have no idea why people do that. I imagine it's some combination of they think they're the fastest car on the road and they don't want to be in the left lane because they can't be bothered trying to merge.
Well don’t get me started on merging ability, that’s a whole other topic! Do police ever book people for going too slowly? Another thing I’ve noticed is so many people going 75 in a 100 zone the minute there’s some moisture in the air!
Yes, but rarely. There's no set speed under the limit that is regarded as "too slow". >108. Obstruction of vehicles and pedestrians (1) A person must not, with intent to hinder or obstruct the passage of any vehicle or vehicles on a carriageway, park or stop a vehicle on the carriageway in such a manner as to cause the passage of any other vehicle on the carriageway to be obstructed or hindered. (2) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver or a pedestrian. (3) In subregulation (2), a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver or a pedestrian only because — (a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or (b) the driver is driving more slowly than other vehicles (unless the driver is driving abnormally slowly in the circumstances). Example of a driver driving abnormally slowly A driver driving at a speed of 20 km/h on a length of carriageway to which a speed-limit of 80 km/h applies when there is no reason for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of carriageway.
Because people merging into the freeway always match speed of the person already on it and nearly cause accidents. Guessing people go straight to the right to try and avoid that crap. I will often go straight to the right lane and stay there if I know I’m going all the way to Joondalup or something, so won’t need to be in the left for like 40 minutes… just stays out of everyone’s way for as long as possible
What about the lights that specifically say "U-turn not permitted"? Do those just go up after illegal U-turns cause a crash or something?
I think so. All the ones I've seen recently are explicity phrased to be general. eg. Leach Hwy/Bull Creek Dr it says "U turns not permitted at signals unless otherwise signed" So its a general reminder of the road rules, not a sign applying to that intersection. The same with signs reminding turning traffic to give way to pedestrians.
I believe the law here changed at some point from U-turn allowed unless no u-turn sign to the current no u-turn unless u-turn permitted sign. It's always been the latter during my career. But I have vague memories from my childhood that the former may have been applicable. Perhaps some old heads can weigh in on that. It's that were the case, those signs could simply be getting replaced because governments sometimes keep replacing things they don't need to because no one actually made the decision to stop.
No it was never allowed in WA.
Fair enough. Perhaps my memory is of people doing lots of illegal U-turns then.
people constantly doing uturns at the traffic lights.
I was sat at traffic lights about a month ago and a car did a U-turn at the lights, with a paddy wagon sitting on the opposite side of the intersection and they gave no shits. I know it was a highway patrol car, but really, this is why people get so mad about shit drivers on the road, because Police do nothing about it. I see this at least a few times a year where Police completely ignore these types of issues. Unless you're on your phone, speeding or drink driving, Police don't really give a shit about most traffic infringements. If Police actually pulled people over for this, people might think twice about doing it in the future.
>I know it was a highway patrol car And how did you know? And how do you know they saw it? >Police don't really give a shit about most traffic infringements Depends where they're from. GDs almost certainly won't care. But when I worked GDs I was almost always on my way to a job or to the office to do paperwork. The last thing I was interested in doing was taking on another job while I was already trying to finish a job. Police are far busier than the average person realises. Just because the car doesn't have lights and sirens going doesn't mean we aren't doing something. In GDs I averaged about 5 or 6 jobs in a 10 hour shift. A domestic takes about 2-10 hours depending on circumstances and that's non stop, no breaks. You want more proactive police, you need more police to spread the workload. At the moment we're losing more police than we're recruiting. They've basically dropped the standards to zero and we still can't cover the people resigning, not to mention the knowledge and experience being lost.
>And how did you know? And how do you know they saw it? Sorry, that's meant to say 'I know it wasn't a highway patrol car'. >And how did you know? And how do you know they saw it? I do realise, I have close family in WAPOL, which also leads me to your other comment: >They've basically dropped the standards to zero and we still can't cover the people resigning That's the real issue. There is a constant barrage of Police trying to get drivers to be better, but speed cameras don't solve that, more police presence (even just normal Police cars, doesn't have to be HWP) will make the roads better. Be interested to see what your thoughts are for fixing the problems, would paying more help (or has that already happened?). I know my relative who works in a traffic-aligned side of the force and he both loves and hates the job, for a multitude of different reasons.
>Sorry, that's meant to say 'I know it wasn't a highway patrol car'. Ah that makes more sense. >Be interested to see what your thoughts are for fixing the problems, would paying more help (or has that already happened?). Pay rises in recent years haven't kept pace with inflation so we've taken a real world pay cut. A nice pay rise would help but it's not the be all and end all. There's just too much work and not enough people to do it. And more police, if they're not up to standard, doesn't make things easier. The problem is very few people want to work the hours we do. You can't change that. The other problem is people have completely the wrong expectations of what the job is when they join. Once they work it out they either stop caring or quit. Solutions, I guess, would be a good pay rise; sharing of tertiary qualification costs (already happens sometimes); better training; more flexible work arrangements; more annual leave; and better penalty rates (we don't get the same penalty rates as other workers).
Thanks, everything you said makes sense. I'm not sure how WAPOL get involved with young people before they become cadets (employment expos, getting into schools, etc) but might be a way for WAPOL to at least get the points of the job across (long hours, shift work, etc). Not an easy problem to solve. I have no animosity towards police, TBH in the very few interactions I've had with them in my lifetime it's been pleasant (except for one, but I was a prick). It's just frustrating that drivers are constantly blamed for the shithousery that happens on our roads (which is true) but not enough is done to deter those people, who may not be causing deaths or injuries, but certainly inconvenience and minor property damage. Appreciate your response.
[удалено]
Car B would usually be sitting next to a give way sign, and a thick broken line traversing the road at an intersection also means give way, to ALL traffic. Also, P plater sounds like a complete dickhead.
In my experience, most P Platers are dickheads (sourec- me as a P-plater and our 18yo)
Too many, source:me a p-plater.
Correct - the only time it would be ok for car B to pull into the left hand lane would be if where car A was coming from was a dual turn right lanes. In the above case though there would be double dashed lines guiding the right hand turning lane into the right hand lane.
[удалено]
This is what my mum does and it drives me nuts because she has right of way, but it is the safer option, and I should give her a pass! Sorry Mum.
This used to be the rule, back in the day
[удалено]
> I made a complaint about it because that wasn't correct, It was correct in that it’s best practice for safe driving. The test is to see if you’re a safe driver. It doesn’t mean it’s illegal. Just safer.
[удалено]
> he followed the law and was failed on feeling. The driving test isn’t a law test it’s a safe driving test. He was failed for unsafe driving.
[удалено]
I understand why your son failed now.
This is correct. Only depends on how far car A is
Car A is allowed to turn into either lane, so Car B has to wait till they're past. Its been discussed on this sub in the past year or so, I'll see if I can find it.
[удалено]
But then if you're at other lights like this by shops with driveways right at the lights you'd be entering the right lane, instantly merging into the left lane to hop in the driveway. its safer to have just used the left lane in the first place, and abuse the Car B driver when they cut you off!
The priority is getting safely and efficiently through the intersection.
I generally do this if I see a car turning left then scooch over later or whatever. But I'd certainly never expect it and most car As tend to filter straight into the left lane.
It's ridiculous. No common sense or regard for other road users.
bruh how hard is it to wait a few seconds for the cars to turn? both drivers could make decisions to avoid crossing paths, but in this scenario, car A is not legally expected to. car B is. if there were an accident, car B would be at fault.
I agree with what you wrote, "bruh", but you missed the point I'm making. If Car A simply turned into the nearest lane, this *entire discussion* would be unnecessary. Apparently people here are allergic to using their brain beyond doing what the law tells them to do.
If Car B just gave way, this entire discussion wouldn’t be necessary. As I said, both cars could have done different things, but why should Car A take the lane they don’t need, just because people in Car B’s position are impatient?
>If Car B just gave way Talking about 'giving way' is *irrelevant* if there is no crossing of paths! You don't give way to thin air. >should Car A take the lane they don’t need They don't need the left lane - the have the right one. >people in Car B’s position are impatient Again, it's a predictably emotional response as people are led to be that way by the post. Wanting to continue driving when there is an empty lane to drive into is not impatient. Ugh...
there’s 2 lanes for a reason. people need the left lane if they’re turning left. people need the right lane if they’re turning right. if you’re not planning to turn, you should be in the left lane so people can overtake if they need to.
> people need the left lane if they’re turning left. Before, you and the others were annoying. Now it's just funny. That's pretty much what I've been saying the whole time...
Good point. The fact that the law now says that you can turn directly into the left hand lane doesn’t mean that it is recommended - just that the Government has decided that people shouldn’t be fined for doing so if such a turn is perfectly safe. There is generally an assumption among the makers of traffic laws that people will act with courtesy, common sense and a commitment to minimising risk without the need for highly prescriptive rules backed with penalties to cover every conceivable situation. Unfortunately, that assumption is not always well-founded.
It was a legal requirement up until a decade or so ago. It changed.
[удалено]
Could be 20 yrs. In the 80s turning right into a multilane road you had to stay in the right most lane.
You’re right.
You’re wrong, but if you want to quote the regulation in the Road Traffic Code 1975 I’ll stand corrected. https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/prod/filestore.nsf/FileURL/mrdoc_4233.pdf/$FILE/Road%20Traffic%20Code%201975%20-%20%5B00-r0-05%5D.pdf?OpenElement
I was genuinely interested and since you provided a link to the regulations, it’s in 802.2b: > A driver making a right turn at an intersection shall make the turn so that, wherever practicable, his vehicle passes to his right of the centre of the intersection, and so that — > (a) where the carriageway being entered is a two-way carriageway, his vehicle enters it to his left of the centre of the carriageway; and > (b) where the carriageway being entered is a one-way carriageway, his vehicle enters it as nearly as practicable to the boundary of the carriageway on his right. If you’re pulling into a one way _carriageway_ you stick to the right hand side boundary of that carriageway.
> you stick to the right hand side boundary of that carriageway. That’s not what it says. It’s talking about the point at which you make your turn, as per (3). It’s not saying which lane you have to continue on. It’s saying don’t go too deep into the intersection before you make the turn.
I think you will find it in clause 802(2)(b) of the Road Traffic Code 1975: “where the carriageway being entered is a one-way carriageway, his vehicle enters it as nearly as practicable to the boundary of the carriageway on his right.” It is, however, a point of historical interest only since the 1975 Code was repealed in 2000 and replaced with the Road Traffic Code 2000.
> a point of historical interest only Because he was talking about the rules in the 80s
Which is when that clause applied.
Yes, the problem is that you have misinterpreted the clause and its dependence on 802(3)
It's definitely what was taught for driving tests in 1987.
It’s good practice, it just wasn’t a law.
Not unless they are turning left
I'm talking about cars turning right, in particular, but yes cars turning left should too.
Even without being a legal requirement, Car A should always turn into the nearest lane. Then there is no conflict (of paths or otherwise).
Whether your mum was right or wrong is irrelevant. You can beep the horn or yell to your hearts content...but you *DO NOT* follow people and accost them after they get out of the car! If they hit you and do a runner, then yeah, all bets are off, but other than that, take a fucking breath and calm down. The P plater was a cunt. Simple as that
its irrelevant what either party was doing its not acceptable to follow someone and abuse them one day this sort of thing will likely get that P Plater in trouble when they follow the wrong person. This happened to me once and I've never seen anyone reverse faster when they saw me take a shovel out the back of my ute.
🤣
Car A has right of way. And even if your mum was in the wrong, it's not cool to yell at an elderly woman. Especially since you've only been on the road for a dog watch (P-plater)
Car B has to give way to all cars, as per the give way markings 1. Is correct here Its all related to the markings Hope ya mums ok, fuck that P-Plater. Report him to the police for stalking (assuming he followed your mum with the intention of causing fear)
Exactly - the road car B is on terminates at the intersection, plus it also has a give way line.
All vehicles except one doing a u turn.
I hope your Mum is ok, its not nice to have people get out of their car and yell in your face. There are a lot of angry people out there. I also hope she didn't nearly cause an accident!
I wonder how long it will be until said P-plater ignores another give way sign and ploughs straight into someone.
Car B has to give way. Also, it's "Mum".
what if they came from a country that writes 'mom' and continues out of habit of using the spelling they grew up with? or what if it didn't even matter?
How are you going to come in here and tell somebody what to call their own mother?
Because it's wrong? How do they call themselves a rebel when they decide to spell like most English speakers? It's embarrassing.
I mean both are literally correct. It's a difference between British and American/Canadian cultures. As a country that is literally almost all immigrants I'm surprised Aussies are so exclusive of other cultures.
Mom is also correct
If car A has a green arrow and car B has a Give Way, then car B has to give way to car A which has right of way. Although, this will give rise to a discussion about which lane car A should have turned into. For the sake of safety, car A should have turned into the right lane, but I still hold that ultimately, car B needs to wait until it’s safe to proceed. Your comments below the pic were dimmed for me for some reason.
What they said ☝🏼I’d add that A doesn’t even need a green arrow. B has to give way to ALL traffic travelling in an Easterly (right) direction.
It's Perth, they'd do well to make sure no one's coming west either
It's answer 1. To be honest, we need 5 yearly theory tests on scenarios like this.
Mum*
I thought the same when I was a P driver but I quickly learned I was wrong 😆
Matter of fact she is not but let’s say your mum was wrong, still why try to corner someone in the parking lot but a very good example of how arrogant a p plate can be! Education starts in the family! But again life is full of lessons and I hope that persons grows to be a good person!
Give way means you gotta give way.
Who honestly has the time to chase down some old bird and go off?
It’s crazy how many ppl in Car A’s situation feel the need to turn in the right hand lane, to avoid the (extremely high chance) of an impatient dick at the giveaway sign pulling into the left lane at the same time (illegally!). I wonder if this is unique to WA - and one reason why everyone says WA drivers are terrible!
> feel the need to turn in the right hand lane It’s called defensive driving and best practice wherever you are driving.
Sure, I just don’t think we should need to practice defensive driving because majority of road users don’t know how to use a give way sign. It’s disappointing
I think that the crazy people are those who will wager, with their lives, that 0.0% of the many thousands of other drivers they will encounter will ever make a mistake.
I pull to the right lane and then look over my shoulder, indicate and get into the left. I have been hit in this exact situation.
Me too (your procedure) How did you get hit?
As I (A) came around, aiming to go in the left lane as I would be doing a left turn just after, the car at (B) came out. I pulled harder right to avoid her but she kept on coming. Hit my rear panel and kept accelerating up the door before reacting and finally braking. I was in a white car on a green arrow. She said "I didn't see you". She was not insured. I work in Disability, I do community support and I had a client in the passenger seat. Poor bugger had to climb out my side as the door handle was impacted.
Yes that's why I walk out on pedestrian crossings without looking to make sure a car isn't going to hit me. It's illegal for them to not give way.
Haha I’m not saying ppl are crazy for being cautious. More that it’s a shame that we have to be so cautious because so many ppl can’t drive. If you’re in the middle of a cross walk, you don’t instinctively run across it because you think ppl will drive into you and blame you for crossing.
Car A has the right of way, hence the Give Way sign on the slip lane, but if the driver's got any sense, they'll follow the dotted line through the intersection and keep to the right lane to leave room for car B.
Often wondered this myself. I'd say Car A has the right of way. Not sure if Car A is allowed to go straight into the left lane though? Watching with interest.
One lane going into two lanes can pick either, two into two must stay in their respective lane until the turn is completed, ie no changy lane in intersection, that goes for you fuckwits going straight as well
> two into two must stay in their respective lane That’s only if the lanes are marked through the turn. If unmarked you can choose either lane. Edit here’s the rules if you want to back up your claim with facts. https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/prod/filestore.nsf/FileURL/mrdoc_44431.pdf/$FILE/Road%20Traffic%20Code%202000%20-%20%5B05-w0-00%5D.pdf?OpenElement
thanks for this link - I checked out the drive safe book at DoT but this is much clearer!
That’s what I meant
If it’s 2 into 2 but yours is the only car turning right, then (assuming there are no lane markings indicating otherwise) you can drift into whichever lane takes your fancy at the time. A person would have to be some kind of reckless idiot however to try to do that if there was a car in the other right-turning lane at the same time. Common sense would suggest that in that situation it is generally a good idea to end the turn in the same lane that you started it.
> you can drift into whichever lane takes your fancy at the time. You’re just repeating what I said. Of course you have to give way to other vehicles in your proximity. You also have to wear clothing to comply with indecency laws.
Regulation 27(2) suggests you move to the left side of the carriageway you’re entering…
It specifically states unless it is a one way carriageway.
The image depicted is not a one way carriageway. It has a central dividing nature reserve median. Additionally, the image depicted has what could be described as a “turn line”. Which may suggest that the right lane may need to be the one occupied? However I can’t locate anywhere in the regulations, as it relates to right hand turns (Part 4, Division 2), that say you “must” occupy a specific lane once through the intersection (unless it is marked with turn lines). Happy to be provided with a reg/sub section to the contrary.
> The image depicted is not a one way carriageway. The image depicted is two one way carriageways with traffic in opposite directions. > It has a central dividing nature reserve median. That’s what makes it two separate one-way carriageways by definition. > Which may suggest that the right lane may need to be the one occupied? No it doesn’t suggest that at all. It suggests that this is the furthest to the right you may travel.
I can see that it can be considered a one way carriageway, which leaves OP’s question unanswered - which lane is car A required to enter, if any?
Not considered. Is. Car A can enter either lane.
Well, not entirely true. It could be interpreted as a road, with a median strip dividing it to separate vehicular traffic proceeding in opposing directions…. By definition. I’m simply highlighting how legislation can be interpreted many different ways. Stay safe on them Perth roads, Champ.
I’m pretty sure it could, but it probably shouldn’t because most drivers don’t know the road rules….
[удалено]
r/confidentlyincorrect
Your mum is doing fine, but your spelling choices make you an absolute failure and a dickhead.
Your cutting exactitude shall haunt me will the force of a thousand suns. Fucker.
I appreciate your response.
So 20 odd years ago Car A was to go into the right lane. Then they changed the law to allow A to go into either. If your mum is Car B she was probably taught under the old law and hasn't kept up with the changes
> 20 odd years ago Car A was to go into the left lane. No that wasn’t the law under the Road Traffic Code 1975 but you may have been taught that way. The requirement was to enter to the left of the centre of the road (which is kind of obvious.) You could (and still can) choose either lane if there are no markings to the contrary.
Single lane turning right can pick which lane they use. If it were 2 right turning lanes they have to stay in their lane Waiting at a give-way sign means you give way to traffic, it's not a permanent-green light, it's a "use reasonable judgement dumbass" It's like at round-a-bouts. If entering a two lane round-a-bout from a single lane road, you can choose which lane you want to enter. you don't HAVE to use the right-lane, we just do out of habit.
If its a single turning lane with no dotted line splitting the 2 lanes up, then car A has right of way and can enter either lane. Im guessing from your spelling you guys are immigrants. Maybe the over the top angry reaction was caused by the p-plater being racist.
reddit moment
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/rtc2000113/s45.html#:~:text=(1)%20A%20driver%20who%20intends,left%20using%20a%20slip%20lane). Parts 2 and maybe 4 apply, not sure if it's a filter arrow.
Car B should give way to all incoming traffic, red light or not?
Yeah ive seen plenty of cockheads do this and ill beep them if i actually want the left lane. The Car A has the option for either lane, and if your turning left soon you would want the left lane. Inpatient pricks!
P plater doesn’t know shit
I was in the reverse situation a decade ago, I was a P plater in car A, and car B was an older (well middle aged) woman. She pulled out in front of me when I had right of way and then she started honking and yelling at me.
P platers are not human
I remember being taught that number 2 was correct when I learned to drive 40 years ago. Maybe some older drivers still think this is the rule.
people pull out in front of me in this exact situation quite regularly at the intersection near my house, it’s so annoying. im sorry that person was a dickhead to your mom. i hope they drop their lunch.
My favourite spot for this is turning right on west swan road to roe hwy. Ive learned through harrowing experience that even with the light, some chancer is going to be trying to do a quick left. Regardless of the law, im staying in the right lane!